[ogl]

There is one DA lens on the roadmap. I know, it has been there for five years, which is seriously frustrating, but the fact that it's still on the roadmap means they haven't given up on it. And updates of existing DA lenses have not usually been on the roadmap, to my knowledge. So we may well see e.g. the DA 35 and 50 updated with PLM, WR and HD out of the blue.

As for me - I need DA* or DA WR travel prime 20-25 mm. I tried DA20-40 and my copy was terrible in terms of BF/FF. I don't want to repeat.
The prime is easy to adjust.

[FantasticMrFox]

As for me - I need DA* or DA WR travel prime 20-25 mm. I tried DA20-40 and my copy was terrible in terms of BF/FF. I don't want to repeat.
The prime is easy to adjust.

True, a 24 mm APS-C prime is very much needed. On FF, 35 mm is probably the most popular focal length in existence. On APS-C that would be about 24 mm.

[johnmflores]

Li'l Sabastian?!

Li'l Sebastian is a mini horse, not a pony! Only an Eagletonian could make such a basic mistake

A whole bunch of people are muttering, "WTF?" right now lol.

It's Jerry's fault.

[Kunzite]

K-mount still, AFAIK. But that's all I know.

Hello, Adam... any news regarding this surprise? At least, on which end of the K-mount it is, camera-side or the lens-side?

[Winder]

Hello, Adam... any news regarding this surprise? At least, on which end of the K-mount it is, camera-side or the lens-side?

My guess is that we see some existing lenses updated. The DA* 200 might get updated and correctly marked as a D-FA* 200mm since it is a FF lens anyway. Ricoh doesn't have the resources to work on a lot of different projects, but they can update existing designs with modern coatings like they did with the DA Limited glass. Maybe they take the Limited designs and give them modern in lens AF motors, weather sealing, & Aerobright and HD coatings. That could buy them 5 years or so while they build their lens catalog.

[eurostar]

True, a 24 mm APS-C prime is very much needed. On FF, 35 mm is probably the most popular focal length in existence. On APS-C that would be about 24 mm.

And well'get a DFA* 24/1,8 as big as a wok...

[ogl]

Hello, Adam... any news regarding this surprise? At least, on which end of the K-mount it is, camera-side or the lens-side?

SR in video by firmware in KP and K-1 is surprise

[ogl]

And well'get a DFA* 24/1,8 as big as a wok...

it's another league, DA24/2.5 PLM WR is enough for me.

[ogl]

We are discussing at Russian penta-club the situation that smartphones already killed P&S cameras and the photo market of DSLR and EVIL decreases every year. The people lose interest to photo equipment.
For example, all my friends and relatives (who had P&S cameras, mirrorless and DSLR just for family shooting) stopped to use all this gear several years ago and use smart phones only.

It seems to me Ricoh looks a bit confused. Q is frozen and I think it won't have any perspectives.
To carry APS-C, FF and MF is rather heavy burden for Ricoh. Everything goes very slow and with risks to lose all.
But to hesitate is more risk than to go very slow and in conservative way.

How to remain afloat ? To launch lenses slowly is wrong way. IMO. The lenses are flesh and blood of system.
New lenses are the bricks of photo brand.

[thibs]

My guess is that we see some existing lenses updated. The DA* 200 might get updated and correctly marked as a D-FA* 200mm since it is a FF lens anyway. Ricoh doesn't have the resources to work on a lot of different projects, but they can update existing designs with modern coatings like they did with the DA Limited glass. Maybe they take the Limited designs and give them modern in lens AF motors, weather sealing, & Aerobright and HD coatings. That could buy them 5 years or so while they build their lens catalog.

IMO the DA*200 will be redone. It already is a FA* is DA* cloths and shows to much CA (among other things) if what I read many times is accurate.
The DA*300 though is a modern optical formula and driven by a modern AF tech, it should be good to go.

FA135 is still very good, it could be use again as an affordable DFA.
An hypothetical DFA*135 should be /1.8 or /2, new design and not affordable at all

IMO most of those, if at all useful (they'll all be IMO) on APS will still get the KAF3 treatment and NOT the KAF4.
The alternative, if they wanna sell lenses (and they do) would be the release of patched firmware for quite a couple cams (maybe not K10/K20) but K5/K5II certainly and associated cheaper cams (K30, K50..).
Otherwise, not enough market for those lenses. This is the kind of considerations Kenspo was talking about. Sacrifices previous users and only chase only new ones with superior tech but at the risk of cutting yourself out of your own market.
Decisons, decisions....

[Adam]

Hello, Adam... any news regarding this surprise? At least, on which end of the K-mount it is, camera-side or the lens-side?

It's a surprise that they're not telling us about but that's not currently roadmapped.

[Kunzite]

So it's not in the interview...

[D1N0]

The future is bright. Kenspo says so. But he won't say anything else.

[FantasticMrFox]

IMO most of those, if at all useful (they'll all be IMO) on APS will still get the KAF3 treatment and NOT the KAF4.
The alternative, if they wanna sell lenses (and they do) would be the release of patched firmware for quite a couple cams (maybe not K10/K20) but K5/K5II certainly and associated cheaper cams (K30, K50..)

Of course further firmware upgrades would be welcome, but with the K3, K3 II, K50 (yes, it got an update too ), K70, KP and K-1 now all being KAF4 compatible, they have covered a pretty large portion of Pentax users. They updated the K3 and K50 because people were unhappy about being left out, but the K30 and K5 II are now so old that many of those owning these will be upgrading soon anyway. After all, Pentax also wants to sell cameras, and KAF4 could be an effective nudge

It's a surprise that they're not telling us about but that's not currently roadmapped.

Considering they only have official roadmaps for lenses, it must be a lens then

[Nicolas06]

For $165,000,000 Ricoh got all the Real Estate, Plant & Equipment, the Patents, any intermediate parts like the (rumored to be substantial) inventory of glass blanks, the Inventory of completed cameras and lenses, the Goodwill in the Pentax name and any value in employee processes and procedures. The SMC evaporators had already been fully amortized* and SMC was off patent. FA43 is a 1993 lens; FA77 is a 1999 lens; FA31 is a 2001 lens. The amortization schedule for tooling for lenses is 10 years; the R&D had been recovered.

I'll concede for discussion the cost of glass blanks, which was likely de minimus since Pentax Imaging was sold at Distress pricing. There was therefore little to no value associated with the FA Limiteds in the purchase price aside from Goodwill ascribed to their reputation.

The plan was to discontinue the FA Limiteds once the inventory from the December, 2012 production lot was exhausted. That plan changed when K-1 was greenlighted and all three Limiteds went into a new production batch in February, 2016.. I'd bet, if it was possible to know, we would find the FA Limiteds are the most profitable product Ricoh has in current production - as they are. Changing them would actually reduce the profit margin.



* Recall that Ricoh immediately invested in new evaporators associated with HD. To make that a good business decision they had to have a new, patented coating.

Some things are expensive, some others are not.

Using the new coating => cost = 0 because you need it for other lenses anyway.
Changing the diaphragm / making the lens APD => 0 investment in R&D, cost is the added inventory, but if you need a new batch anyway, that's near 0.
Changing the body / quick shift / adding WR => cost is small, 0 investment in R&D, cost again is mostly added inventory. For WR it may depend of design but 55-300 shown it can be done.

Different AF motor => new focussing group = full lens redesign = a different lens = Quite Expensive but if the lens sell well that's no issue except you have limited resource for that or you need to outsource.

So giving us DFA ltd with quick shift, better coating, new body, WR and rounded apperture blades is no issue. Like the HD DA as long as we keep screw drive. and that is justified if you want to produce a new batch of the lenses anyway and also want to modernize the line.

But there much more to the R&D to the final price of lenses. There the expected volume. Maybe the 55-300 PLM cost in R&D is more than the new DFA50 f/1.4 or a totally new DFA31, but the 55-300 will sell many order of magnitude time more. So the R&D cost per unit is much lower.

There also the price of manufacturing the lens, the target quality/finish, the work involved. I think that the FAltd may need lot of work and that may be also part of their old design. Reality is the current factories are not optimized for theses lenses. Too old design, not optimizations and a design that likely prioritize ultimate quality over cost of manufacturing.

Finally, you typicall sell for as much as you can. Part of the game is to ask for a high price when the thing is quite new. As long as people buy it, why not?

Changing the AF technology is the same as creating new lenses. Theses new lenses may be DFA limited, they may even share the same focal length, design philosophy etc... They not behave the same. Maybe they be better, maybe worse, they'll be different.